If Harry were to marry on a Saturday, wouldn't that remove the need for a 'bank holiday'?
BTW, I have been reading the letters of the Queen Mother and in one letter she reference's Margaret's engagement which was announced 2/26/1960, w/ the wedding occurring less than 3 months later on 5/6/1960. So, in my mind, an announcement in say December could result in a wedding before The Duchess of Cambridge's due date, rather than after.

If i recall correctly, even W&Ks wedding wasn't declared a bank holiday straight away but after the date had been announced and it was clear there was public & media appetite for the wedding. There were still a few moans about the cost of "another bank holiday", lost working hours etc so I don't think they would try and do the same for Harry. I would think he would marry on a Saturday and remove the need for a bank holiday altogether.

If i recall correctly, even W&Ks wedding wasn't declared a bank holiday straight away but after the date had been announced and it was clear there was public & media appetite for the wedding. There were still a few moans about the cost of "another bank holiday", lost working hours etc so I don't think they would try and do the same for Harry. I would think he would marry on a Saturday and remove the need for a bank holiday altogether.

I didn't remember, so checked former news reports: it was declared a bank holiday from the start. On November 19 there were rumours that the prime minister had suggested the day to be a bank holiday and on the 23rd the date was announced including the news that it was to be a bank holiday.

As far as Anne's wedding being a Bank Holiday--she was the first of the Queen's children to marry and it was 1973. Different times.

Absolutely. The same goes for thinking about St. Paul's as a wedding site. That was a very unusual situation (I believe Charles and Diana's was the only royal wedding there. Ever.) that marks a different era in royal pomp and circumstance. For most of the 20th century, up through the late 80s, the thinking in the BRF seemed to be to push towards bigger events, more "spectacle." The two events that feel to me like the climax of that trend were Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales and his wedding to Diana, both of which were events which seemed to be on a scale beyond what the BRF had ever done before for a Prince of Wales. St. Paul's was picked not only to expand the guest list by 15-HUNDRED but also to follow the ceremony with an unusually long carriage procession through the adoring throngs.

Since that wedding, and since Andrew's wedding, the BRF has learned some hard lessons about the highs and lows of royal PR in the modern era. They've also had fundamental course changes regarding the financing of royal activities. The often repeated idea that Charles wants to scale down the BRF may just be a rumor or may be blown out of proportion. But if you just look at the track record of how The Firm has done things since the "Annus Horribilis" there does seem to have been a tempering of approach. They're far from pulling back to pre-20th century levels of royal privacy (for generations prior to that point, the weddings were in smaller chapels like St. James or Windsor, there was nothing public about the the monarch's heir being made PoW, etc.), but they also seem to have decided that they let the pendulum swing too far and that there is a limit on how big public events should be (especially when they aren't centered on the reigning monarch or a truly rare event like a Diamond Jubilee).

Does anyone think York Minster would be a nice venue for Harry's wedding? I tried to look up the capacity, but I couldn't find it. I believe there was a royal wedding held there previously in the 1960s, the Duchess of Kent maybe? I mean I live in London, but it does seem unfair that London and the south east get all the royal weddings (Anne's second time and Zara aside).

With Harry's wedding, I think just about anything is possible. With Harry not being anywhere near the position of sitting on the throne, I think Harry's wedding will be a totally different one from what William's was and previous royal weddings and that Harry will make it unique in his own way. York Minster or some place that hasn't really been used in recent times would really make a wedding all the more enjoyable and not seem like a repeat of previous weddings and have a "just like" flavor to it.

__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

Does anyone think York Minster would be a nice venue for Harry's wedding? I tried to look up the capacity, but I couldn't find it. I believe there was a royal wedding held there previously in the 1960s, the Duchess of Kent maybe? I mean I live in London, but it does seem unfair that London and the south east get all the royal weddings (Anne's second time and Zara aside).

Yes, The Duke and Duchess of Kent married there.
I thought of York Minster for Beatrice or Eugenie when they marry.

But I was told that the difficulty would be the reception. There's no royal property close enough. (Unless they had it in a hotel or something like that, which seems unlikely).

At St. George's they could have the reception at Windsor Castle; at Westminster Abbey they could have it at Buckingham Palace.

Does anyone think York Minster would be a nice venue for Harry's wedding? I tried to look up the capacity, but I couldn't find it. I believe there was a royal wedding held there previously in the 1960s, the Duchess of Kent maybe? I mean I live in London, but it does seem unfair that London and the south east get all the royal weddings (Anne's second time and Zara aside).

I had thought of York Minster as well! I looked it up and saw some pictures from the Duke and Duchess of Kent's wedding in the 60's. It is really very beautiful. I think it might not work for two reasons. One is, it's really big. So if they were trying to go for smaller (at least smaller than Will and Kate) that might be hard. Secondly as someone else mentioned is the reception. The Duke and Duchess of Kent married there, because her family was from there. They were able to have their reception at her family home. There really isn't anyplace close that could handle a royal reception.

OK I have found out the capacity and it is 2000, same as WA. So it's not actually bigger. It could be seen as, although the capacity is the same as William's (doesn't mean they have to have 2000, 1200 would still fill it up without it looking half empty), because it is 'provincial' it wouldn't be seen as stealing William's thunder. I'm sure something could be arranged for the reception. Any local Duke, Earl or even just a large hotel would be honoured to help I am sure. If it was a hotel, they might do it just for the publicity, so the royals can't be accused of wasting money.

Harry, if anyone who knows you reads this, we would love you to marry in the Minster, with a carriage ride around York afterwards! Well I would anyway.

OK I have found out the capacity and it is 2000, same as WA. So it's not actually bigger. It could be seen as, although the capacity is the same as William's (doesn't mean they have to have 2000, 1200 would still fill it up without it looking half empty), because it is 'provincial' it wouldn't be seen as stealing William's thunder. I'm sure something could be arranged for the reception. Any local Duke, Earl or even just a large hotel would be honoured to help I am sure. If it was a hotel, they might do it just for the publicity, so the royals can't be accused of wasting money.

Harry, if anyone who knows you reads this, we would love you to marry in the Minster, with a carriage ride around York afterwards! Well I would anyway.

Well since we know the duke of York doesn't own a home there...... There is Castle Howard. Castle Howard was once owned by the Earl of Carlisle but belongs to a junior branch. Anyone who has watched Brideshead revisited would be familiar with the home. And its about 25 minutes from the cathedral. Don't know if the Windsors know the family personally, but there is a big polo match at the castle every year, Charles has played in.

But asking a family to host a huge royal wedding for free??? These families have huge expenses to keep their homes running. Castle Howard is open to the public to help keep it running (home is in a trust).

There is no reason for them to marry in York. Why? What connection do they have to York? Yes, the duke and duchess of Kent married there. But The duchess was born in Kent. Her family owned, actually still owns, a huge estate not far from the cathedral. Their reception was hosted at the estate. They simply followed the old tradition of marrying at the bride's home.

I guess if they really wanted to marry in York, they could always ask the Duchess of Kent to use her family home. Its owned by her nephew now, her brother having died in 2012.

If they don't marry at WM it will either personal preference, size or cost. Marrying at York wouldn't help with size or cost. It makes far more sense to marry near one of the royal properties, where they can host the reception. There are plenty to choose from.

Or they could marry at Gloucester cathedral and have their reception at High Grove. Its about 40 minute distance but not too bad.

Oh I didn't know about this one! So pretty. Hmmmm.....ok. I could see it. Still thinking WA or St. George's is more likely, but if they want to be different, but still have a little pomp I can see it. A reception at Highgrove House. Charles does love to show off that house. The boys spent a lot of time there as kids. I can see it! I like having some other options to discuss!

How about St. Mary Magadalene at Sandringham-don’t know if it’s big enough. Wherever, it’s sure to be magnificent

Well it certainly has royal and very personal connection to Harry. Princess Diana was christened there. But from what I can see of the church and, though beautiful it is pretty small.I can't find the exact number of how many people it holds, but I believe I read somewhere 100 or so. If they were looking to go small, not televised it could work. Reception at Sandringham. That's easy. I just don't think they could get away with going that small and not televising it.

I will say, I'm loving this conversation, because I'm getting more info on some really beautiful churches!

I have been to both York Minster and the church and Sandringham. They are both beautiful. However I remember St Mary's as being very small, hardly surprisingly! I just can't see a Royal wedding being held there.

When you consider that Harry at least would want to invite IG and Army friends, charity workers as well as friends, family friends and his own relatives. Then Meghan will have her contingent and there would be BBC cameramen and a commentator (plus all the lights needed) I just can't see it working.

York Minster is lovely and space-wise it would work, but bride and groom just have no connections to York or Yorkshire. If Harry went for a church purely on its connection to him, then I believe he would choose Sandringham or a church near Highgrove, where he grew up. If there's a large and beautiful church near Highgrove then that might be possible, but I believe they're all small village churches in that location.

They could choose the Guards Chapel I suppose (Army connections) but I just feel it's more likely to be St George's or WA than not.

Thanks, Countessmeout. So Gloucester Cathedral is only 40 mins away? Never been to Gloucestershire. Of course, I suppose the problem there would be accommodation for close relatives, Queen, Duke, Meghan's parents, the Cambridge family, any VIP guests, and bride's contingent including any bridesmaids, Maids of Honour, Pages etc. I suppose some could book into Gloucester hotels to get ready but it might be a bit spread out, or bus it in from London. I just feel that they would all find London/Windsor much more convenient.

By the way, I really wish that media outlets would stop repeating the furphy that there won't be a ceremony in Church because Meghan is a divorcee. That was all sorted months ago via an announcement by a WA spokesman.